- The data for Laver are relatively small (but big enough for his winning percentage to be relevant nonetheless).
- Connors played for a really long time, which make his result very impressive. However Fed's data are even bigger, which is impressive too.
- The winning percentage don't weight the importance of the tournament.

Hard courts has a relatively short history as a big time surface. So judging just the last 35 years since it has come to prominence and had atleast 1 major event held on it:

1. Federer- isnt the best ever on either fast or slow hard courts, but has the best balance of dominance between the two.

2. Sampras- best ever on faster hard courts and very good on slower ones too.

3. Djokovic- best ever on slower hard courts and very good on faster ones. Will overtake Federer as overall hard court GOAT by end of career most likely.

4. Agassi- best ever along with Djokovic on slower hard courts, and excellent on faster ones. Was held back by Sampras denying him so many fast hard court titles, and not playing the Australian Open so often early in his career.

5. Connors- actually maybe should be higher considering he would almost certainly have won 6 or 7 U.S Opens on fast hard courts and been the overall fast hard court GOAT today had the U.S Open not been on clay for 3 years.

6. McEnroe- at his best some of the highest level of play on hard courts, but not consistent enough.

7. Lendl- I feel like this is low but not sure who to place him above of the ones above.

------big gap-------

8. Nadal- super consistent on outdoor hard courts in prime years, and has won Australian Open, U.S Open, Olympics, and numerous Masters on them.

9. Murray- very consistently great results on hard courts in tough era.

10. Edberg- his 2 U.S Open performances are strong enough I put him above Becker and Courier.

Overall I think I'll go with Federer, Sampras, McEnroe, Connors and Lendl. There's a case for Lendl being higher. Mac in his prime loved hard courts.
Djokovic might surpass some of the others at his current rate.

Hard courts has a relatively short history as a big time surface. So judging just the last 35 years since it has come to prominence and had atleast 1 major event held on it:

1. Federer- isnt the best ever on either fast or slow hard courts, but has the best balance of dominance between the two.

2. Sampras- best ever on faster hard courts and very good on slower ones too.

3. Djokovic- best ever on slower hard courts and very good on faster ones. Will overtake Federer as overall hard court GOAT by end of career most likely.

4. Agassi- best ever along with Djokovic on slower hard courts, and excellent on faster ones. Was held back by Sampras denying him so many fast hard court titles, and not playing the Australian Open so often early in his career.

5. Connors- actually maybe should be higher considering he would almost certainly have won 6 or 7 U.S Opens on fast hard courts and been the overall fast hard court GOAT today had the U.S Open not been on clay for 3 years.

6. McEnroe- at his best some of the highest level of play on hard courts, but not consistent enough.

7. Lendl- I feel like this is low but not sure who to place him above of the ones above.

------big gap-------

8. Nadal- super consistent on outdoor hard courts in prime years, and has won Australian Open, U.S Open, Olympics, and numerous Masters on them.

9. Murray- very consistently great results on hard courts in tough era.

10. Edberg- his 2 U.S Open performances are strong enough I put him above Becker and Courier.

Hard courts has a relatively short history as a big time surface. So judging just the last 35 years since it has come to prominence and had atleast 1 major event held on it:

1. Federer- isnt the best ever on either fast or slow hard courts, but has the best balance of dominance between the two.

2. Sampras- best ever on faster hard courts and very good on slower ones too.

3. Djokovic- best ever on slower hard courts and very good on faster ones. Will overtake Federer as overall hard court GOAT by end of career most likely.

4. Agassi- best ever along with Djokovic on slower hard courts, and excellent on faster ones. Was held back by Sampras denying him so many fast hard court titles, and not playing the Australian Open so often early in his career.

5. Connors- actually maybe should be higher considering he would almost certainly have won 6 or 7 U.S Opens on fast hard courts and been the overall fast hard court GOAT today had the U.S Open not been on clay for 3 years.

6. McEnroe- at his best some of the highest level of play on hard courts, but not consistent enough.

7. Lendl- I feel like this is low but not sure who to place him above of the ones above.

------big gap-------

8. Nadal- super consistent on outdoor hard courts in prime years, and has won Australian Open, U.S Open, Olympics, and numerous Masters on them.

9. Murray- very consistently great results on hard courts in tough era.

10. Edberg- his 2 U.S Open performances are strong enough I put him above Becker and Courier.

Click to expand...

Great post, but I think you overrate Djokovic for now. In term of achievements he is far behind Lendl, Connors, Agassi and of course Sampras and Fed. He has some good chance to rise higher, but it's not done yet.

It is also too early to give him the edge on Agassi as the slow court goat, as Agassi missed a lot of AO.

How is he far behind. He already has the same # of slam titles on hard courts as Lendl and only 1 less than Agassi at only 25. He already has a ton of Masters titles, 2 WTFs (which is always played on an indoor hard court these days), and many additional slam finals and semis. He was far more dominant overall on hard courts than Agassi ever was apart from maybe 1995, and even then Agassi wasnt able to win the U.S Open due to Sampras, and his dominance at the Australian Open far exceeds what Lendl was able to show at either slam (going 3-5 in U.S Open finals is not dominance, sorry). Furthermore most now consider him the Australian Open GOAT, which alone elevates him to a high ranking.

Now regarding Lendl I think a large reason I ranked him where I did is I flat out think all those others were better hard court players and prime to prime would all beat him more often than not in a head to head. Keep in mind Lendl didnt win squat on hard courts until McEnroe fell way off form, and Connors was 32, despite being top 3 for years at that point. Connors at 30 and 31 beat Lendl at the U.S Open and generally was still dominating their rivalry. As for the what ifs about the Australian Open, one could make just as many about Agassi had he played it all those years before 1995, and one could point out he almost certainly won the 1990 Australian Open only due to Edberg's injury in the final, etc...Note what Connors himself said of Lendl at the 1992 U.S Open:

Pancho Gonzalez won around 27 Hardcourt tournament victories, perhaps more. A lot of the surfaces he won tournaments on aren't known so he may have far more. I counted wood as a hard court by the way.

Rod Laver has won around 30 hardcourt tournaments, perhaps a lot more. Again, it's the same as Gonzalez. I counted wood as hard court and many of the surfaces Laver won tournaments were unknown so he could have won far more. There was on Pro Major won on wood.

Ken Rosewall won around 32 hardcourt tournaments, perhaps more. Rosewall won four Pro Majors on wood.

Pancho Gonzalez won around 27 Hardcourt tournament victories, perhaps more. A lot of the surfaces he won tournaments on aren't known so he may have far more. I counted wood as a hard court by the way.

Rod Laver has won around 30 hardcourt tournaments, perhaps a lot more. Again, it's the same as Gonzalez. I counted wood as hard court and many of the surfaces Laver won tournaments were unknown so he could have won far more. There was on Pro Major won on wood.

Ken Rosewall won around 32 hardcourt tournaments, perhaps more. Rosewall won four Pro Majors on wood.

Bill Tilden won probably around 12 hardcourt tournaments.

Jimmy Connors won 45 hardcourt tournaments and 3 majors on hardcourt.

Click to expand...

pc1, As far as I know there were two pro majors played on wood in Laver's and Rosewall' time: Wembley and French pro. Thus Laver has won 5 pro majors on wood and Rosewall 9.

How is he far behind. He already has the same # of slam titles on hard courts as Lendl and only 1 less than Agassi at only 25. He already has a ton of Masters titles, 2 WTFs (which is always played on an indoor hard court these days), and many additional slam finals and semis. He was far more dominant overall on hard courts than Agassi ever was apart from maybe 1995, and even then Agassi wasnt able to win the U.S Open due to Sampras, and his dominance at the U.S Open far exceeds what Lendl was able to show at either slam (going 3-5 in U.S Open finals is not dominance, sorry). Furthermore most now consider him the Australian Open GOAT, which alone elevates him to a high ranking.

Now regarding Lendl I think a large reason I ranked him where I did is I flat out think all those others were better hard court players and prime to prime would all beat him more often than not in a head to head. Keep in mind Lendl didnt win squat on hard courts until McEnroe fell way off form, and Connors was 32, despite being top 3 for years at that point. Connors at 30 and 31 beat Lendl at the U.S Open and generally was still dominating their rivalry. As for the what ifs about the Australian Open, one could make just as many about Agassi had he played it all those years before 1995, and one could point out he almost certainly won the 1990 Australian Open only due to Edberg's injury in the final, etc...Note what Connors himself said of Lendl at the 1992 U.S Open:

Click to expand...

Yes you make valid point. I still rank Lendl higher because, while he has no more major than Nole, he has at the moment five more finals appearance in hard court majors. Sides things is that he has still more total hard-court tournaments and (I'm not sure) more "master 1000 equivalent" hard-court tournaments. Of course Novak will top this number. However I doubt that Novak will top his winning percentage on hard-court, which is at the moment higher than Novak's, as winning percentage tend to decrease with long careers (which Lendl had). For the argument of the peak play you may be right, but I don't care for peak play level and don't enter into argumentation about that as I feel it to difficult to assess.

As for Agassi, he has still one more HC major title, more HC major final, more master 1000 HC titles, more HC tournaments titles in general. His winning percentage is lower though.

As for the AO goat titles, it is nice and all but frankly that is not the most outstanding record in tennis considering so many top players didn't care to play it for so long. AO is still the small slam in term of legacy. And, while some may consider him the AO goat, few would consider him the AO goat by a large margin: he has no more titles than Fed and Agassi.

I don't doubt that he will rank higher at the end of his career. He will have more majors titles, maybe even at the end of the year or next years. On the other hand his winning percentage will decrease with time and age. He has only 1-2 years at the very top left (altough he can remains extremely competitive longer like Fed)

How is he far behind. He already has the same # of slam titles on hard courts as Lendl and only 1 less than Agassi at only 25. He already has a ton of Masters titles, 2 WTFs (which is always played on an indoor hard court these days), and many additional slam finals and semis. He was far more dominant overall on hard courts than Agassi ever was apart from maybe 1995, and even then Agassi wasnt able to win the U.S Open due to Sampras, and his dominance at the U.S Open far exceeds what Lendl was able to show at either slam (going 3-5 in U.S Open finals is not dominance, sorry). Furthermore most now consider him the Australian Open GOAT, which alone elevates him to a high ranking.

Now regarding Lendl I think a large reason I ranked him where I did is I flat out think all those others were better hard court players and prime to prime would all beat him more often than not in a head to head. Keep in mind Lendl didnt win squat on hard courts until McEnroe fell way off form, and Connors was 32, despite being top 3 for years at that point. Connors at 30 and 31 beat Lendl at the U.S Open and generally was still dominating their rivalry. As for the what ifs about the Australian Open, one could make just as many about Agassi had he played it all those years before 1995, and one could point out he almost certainly won the 1990 Australian Open only due to Edberg's injury in the final, etc...Note what Connors himself said of Lendl at the 1992 U.S Open:

How is going 1-3 in U.S. Open finals more dominant than 3-5? Lendl has literally three times as many titles as Djokovic does at the U.S. Open.

Click to expand...

Sorry I meant to say Djokovic at the Australian Open, not the U.S Open. Djokovic is dominant at the Australian Open in a way Lendl isnt dominant at either hard court slam. On another note while 8 straight finals and 3 titles is still hugely impressive, Lendl vs his main rivals Connors, McEnroe, and Becker is 1-4 in U.S Open finals.

Sorry I meant to say Djokovic at the Australian Open, not the U.S Open. Djokovic is dominant at the Australian Open in a way Lendl isnt dominant at either hard court slam. On another note while 8 straight finals and 3 titles is still hugely impressive, Lendl vs his main rivals Connors, McEnroe, and Becker is 1-4 in U.S Open finals.

Click to expand...

Ah, that makes more sense. I'll agree with that. As someone else pointed out, Lendl was kind of unlucky the Australian switched to hard when it did - he was already past his peak level of play. He might have one or two more hard court slams if he'd played his entire career with two hard court majors. But I agree Djokovic will overtake Lendl (at least as a hard court player) by the end of his career - if he hasn't already.